Mr KILL OR Mr Wint and Mr kidd

edited November 2012 in Bond Movies Posts: 122
Which of these two was the worst Bond villains well Mr kill He does not say much but its his name that did me mr kill? we are really trying their? besides he is clearly a poor attempt at a odd job rip off. And for the size of him he didn't put up much of a fight real crap villain. But not as bad as Mr Wint and Mr Kidd by far the most annoying of all Bond villains right to the end when Mr Wint gets some kind of cheap frill when Bond kills him by putting his arm between his legs and chucking him over the rails of the cruise liner (finally the worst thing of them two they was in the whole film I'm shore Bond could of found a way to kill them off early on in the film). I mean there was something clearly something wrong with them two a bit of inter breading I think them two did not have a brain cell between them but managed to kill off so many people even get the better of Bond a couple of times. But how? as they spent most of the film skipping and holding hands they was hardly Red Grant but still managed to give Bond a hard time i did not get it. And was so glad to see them two bumped off. For me the two most annoying villains (and I know someones going to say their maybe a similar discussion somewhere maybe but this is more specific to these characters but any views other characters are welcome.
«13

Comments

  • Posts: 3,333
    Don't you mean Mr Kidd and not Kit which was the car in Knight Rider?
  • Having the name Mr Kill wins it by default, by far the worst IMO.

    Did not mind wint and kidd they fit the tone of diamonds and were a law to there own on occasion, they just seemed to enjoy killing people.
  • I actually enjoy Wint and Kidd... Mr Kill is so unbelieveable forgetable that it hurts...
  • I think Wint and Kidd are sort of creepy and make an audience uncomfortable (particularly at the time the movie was released); Kill is, for me, another example of that era's Bond movies where they seemed to be trying too hard to follow a formula, and the antagonist was weakened as a result.
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    Who exactly did Wint and Kid work for in DaF? the diamond mine, were they employed to clean up the stolen goods and kill everyone in the trail of the stolen goods? blofeld, again were they to take him the diamonds killing everyone in the pipline, if so why not just take the diamonds to him directly?
  • oo7 wrote:
    Who exactly did Wint and Kid work for in DaF? the diamond mine, were they employed to clean up the stolen goods and kill everyone in the trail of the stolen goods? blofeld, again were they to take him the diamonds killing everyone in the pipline, if so why not just take the diamonds to him directly?

    Wint and kidd did seem to have there own agenda :-)
  • oo7oo7
    Posts: 1,068
    who is paying for all those flights....who is paying for all those deaths....
  • oo7 wrote:
    who is paying for all those flights....who is paying for all those deaths....

    They probably kept some of the conflict diamonds for themselves ;-)
  • Been ages since i watched Diamonds can't remember if you ever see Wint and Kidd in the same place as Ernst.
  • oo7oo7
    edited November 2012 Posts: 1,068
    you dont they have nothing to do with him otherwise they would have directly given him the diamonds.
    edit OF COURSE THIS IS ONLY IF THEY WORKED FOR HIM.
    who did they work for....
  • edited December 2012 Posts: 3,333
    The only way I can answer that @oo7 is to say that it was all part of an elaborate smuggling ring to throw any investigation off its trail by eliminating the last remaining link. So from the diamond mines of South Africa the gems were smuggled out by Mrs Whistler who was eliminated by Wint & Kidd who passed them onto Tiffany Case who was to team up with Peter Franks and smuggle them into America from Amsterdam as a couple. Once safely in the US both Franks and Case could be disposed of and the diamonds passed on to the next mule, that being Shady Tree. Bond as Peter Franks is nearly killed by Wint and Kidd when they put him in a cremation oven, but Tree stops the process when he discovers that the diamonds in Bond's (really Peter Franks) body are fakes, planted by Bond and the CIA. Bond then tells Leiter to ship the real diamonds as he goes to Las Vegas. After much subterfuge and double-crossing, Tiffany passes them onto the next link which is Saxby before he finally passes them onto Dr Metz at the research lab. So that's 2 links apiece both sides of the Atlantic, the rest we know about.

    It was always clear to me that Wint & Kidd were hired assassins working for Blofeld and would act as a "trail eraser" for a price. If they had been interested in stealing the diamonds for themselves they would have never made it up into space for laser refraction. At the film's climax it is easy to see that Wint & Kidd are professionals and want to fulfill their side of the bargain and eliminate Tiffany and more so Bond for their meddling in the operation. After all, they are hired assassins and it wouldn't look too good on their CV or for their next recruitment drive.

    PS. We know for sure that W&K work for Blofeld because when Bond kills one of the Blofelds in Whyte Tower he is then knocked out by gas in the elevator and is picked up by Wint and Kidd immediately afterwards and taken out to Las Vegas Valley where he is placed in a pipeline and left to die.
  • Posts: 4,762
    I disagree about Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd being pathetic, annoying villains. I actully think they're a big highlight of Diamonds Are Forever! No, I do not approve of the stupid homosexuality implied stuff, but I just put it out of my mind and pretend that they are just regular guys. Then it is a lot easier to enjoy their characters. I always enjoy their creative deaths for their targets, and their banter back and forth with one another, which provides us with some of the wittiest and most quote-worthy dialogue in the series. They are definitely two of the highest-ranking henchmen for me! As for Mr. Kil, I don't mind his name really, I mean it's not a completely original name by any means, but I'm not bothered by it. I thought he was well-used in the movie. We know he's Graves' chief of security at the Ice Palace, and all we needed out of him was a few scenes to show this occupation of his and then a big fight with Bond, which I actually find very entertaining, despite Jinx's dumb side comments during the whole thing.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,333
    I concur with @00Beast, Wint & Kidd are not pathetic. I actually think they're one of the most original villains/henchmen of the series and come across as both creepy and coolly efficient at dispatching their targets, except when it comes to Bond of course. Like the book, they are both sadistic and Felix Leiter suspects that they are both homosexual, which is implied in the film. I really don't have a problem with that. It might not take itself too seriously like earlier or much later outings, namely Craig's Bond, but it does have some dark and thrilling moments that rank it much higher in my listing than some here are willing to give it. But to use the Skyfall excuse and gauge for quality, it can't be that bad as it made a ton of money at the Box Office and outperformed QoS in the Highest Grossing Bond Films chart.
  • DAF is one of my least favourite Bond movies but I agree with some other comments about Wint & Kidd. They are good. Creepy, sadistic, coolly efficient. They are certainly original and one of the most memorable amongst the classic series.
  • Posts: 2,341
    DAF was so campy that the flamboyant gay hit men were in keeping with this crappy film. They were fun but so different from the characters in the book who were cold blooded killers.
    Mr. Kil, now that's a name to die for. He was a bullshit character and totally wasted. Why even have him in the movie? Incompetent as hell and he couldn't even kill Jinx...I know a lot of us on this thread would have volunteered for that assignment.

  • Posts: 3,333
    No, @OHMSS69. DAF wasn't a crappy film as you so eloquently put it. Crappy films didn't make the sort of box office numbers that DAF made in 1971 if they were crap. That's a rather asinine comment to make considering it's still in the Top 10 of most successful Bond films of all time.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    The problem I essentially have with DAF is that it just - in my view - seems a bit too goofy for it's own good. Some of the earlier scenes are actually very good and nicely lifted from the novel but once the action goes into the desert the film loses its momentum. Also the climax on the oil rig isn't particularly tense or exciting. I know that its a less serious film than some of the previous films but even so...the showdown with the main baddie should be more compelling .I know about the planned climax that never happened (the weather balloon chase) but that makes things all the more disappointing to me.
  • Posts: 3,333
    I take your point about some of the goofy qualities of DAF but this was a direct result of the lower audience turn out for the superior OHMSS and Cubby's quick decision to change direction fearing that a serious Bond wasn't what cinema-goers actually wanted back then. The climax is a bit of let down after all the excesses of the previous Bonds, but that had more to do with Connery's contract and the stipulation that if they went even 1-day over schedule they would have to increase his salary quite considerably, hence the corners that were cut and the rewriting of certain scenes, most notably the oil rig finale. I too wish it could have been longer.

    What a lot of younger fans don't seem to appreciate is that once OHMSS left the screens the producers decided to bury it and move on almost as if it had never happened. At the time the producers were in disarray and didn't even have a Bond replacement until Arnold Picker stepped in and lured Connery back. Once Connery was aboard they made the decision to rub the slate clean as if Lazenby's Bond had never existed and alter direction for a lighter 70s Bond. Of course they didn't completely jettison the harder-edged Bond, but instead made some of the characters around him a bit more frivolous. Connery still delivers an air of assured menace and conviction in his performance despite looking a little rough around the edges. The fight in the elevator is a great scene, so is the cool and casual manner Bond takes a ride up the outside of Whyte House and scales the wall using just a piton gun. I absolutely love those scenes. The way Bond responds to Plenty O'Toole being thrown out of the window and elbowing the hood in the stomach is not dissimilar to Sévérine's fate except Bond response is the right one here. In fact there's so many great scenes and lines in this movie that raise it above a crap Bond film I could be here all night going over them. I just think it's fashionable to pour scorn on this movie because it's not the direct sequel modern fans want to see after OHMSS and have decided to lump it in with MR, AVTAK, TMWTGG and DAD because they like to make lists.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 11,189
    There's probably an element of truth to the "fashionable" point @bondsum. It does have some good qualities in it (and I'm not talking souely about Jill St. John) but, for some reason it doesn't quite work as whole to me. Once they go out into the Nervada desert I start to lose interest. I've always thought of DAF as the sort of film you have on in the background but don't actually devote your full attention to it, unlike say FRWL (and all of the other best Bond films) which requires you to watch the whole way through.

    On the plus side though it does have an appearance by Ed Bishop, who voiced a character in one of my favourite childhood TV shows :)

    If I had to pick between Wint and Kidd and Kil though the former win out easily. At least they actually do stuff and aren't there just for decoration.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 6,432
    oo7 wrote:
    you dont they have nothing to do with him otherwise they would have directly given him the diamonds.
    edit OF COURSE THIS IS ONLY IF THEY WORKED FOR HIM.
    who did they work for....

    When bond gets gased it what Blofeld calls 'merely a elevator' in Willard whites penthouse suit, i vaguely remember Wint and Kidd being in the parking lot and taking bond to the pipeline? Its feasible that they either think they are working for white or know they are working for Blofeld.

    sorry @bondsun just noticed you touched on that point.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 2,341
    @bondsum

    Your comment about the box office defines if a film is crappy is asinine. But since you brought up crappy, lets address that. Your comments has more holes in it than the plot of DAF.
    I submit to you that there are lots of films making a ton of money that would qualify as "crappy". But lets keep it to Bond movies. DAD made over 400 million dollars worldwide. You gonna tell me and the rest of us on this board that DAD is a good movie? Lets throw MR in that argument for good measure.

    I stand by my comments about DAF. It is not only crappy movie it is a ton of horse manure and reeks of roadkill.
  • Always thought diamonds had quite a intelligent and witty script, some great one liners and definitely having a go at the credibility of the moon landing e.g. comment on radiation shields and bond running across a moon set with a man in a astronaut suit walking in slow motion.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    @bondsum

    Your comment about the box office defines if a film is crappy is asinine. But since you brought up crappy, lets address that. Your comments has more holes in it than the plot of DAF.
    I submit to you that there are lots of films making a ton of money that would qualify as "crappy". But lets keep it to Bond movies. DAD made over 400 million dollars worldwide. You gonna tell me and the rest of us on this board that DAD is a good movie? Lets throw MR in that argument for good measure.

    I stand by my comments about DAF. It is not only crappy movie it is a ton of horse manure and reeks of roadkill.

    I'm with you all the way here mate.

    DAF is certainly enjoyable and has the makings of a decent Bond film right up until Peter Franks dies. After that its a shambles - shoddy plotting, worse characterisation and a pathetic climax.

    Actually take out the para surfing and invisible car and DAD might actually be better? Hmmm - no it's still got Jinx, the robocop suit and Mr Kil.

    Through all the dross of DAF Wint and Kidd shine like a beacon and the best moments are when they are on screen. Don't really think the same could be said for Kil.

    In fact I'm not sure he's really worthy of inclusion in a henchman debate at all seeing as he only has two scenes - one to introduce his pathetic name ('Alimentary Dr Leiter' that's a funny line - P&W you won't be missed) and one to kill him off.
    I'd rank him more alongside Sandor or even the pitiful Elvis rather than award fully fledged henchman status. He's not even as good as the likes of Hans or Kriegler who were pretty uninspired.
  • edited November 2012 Posts: 3,333
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    @bondsum

    Your comment about the box office defines if a film is crappy is asinine. But since you brought up crappy, lets address that. Your comments has more holes in it than the plot of DAF.
    I submit to you that there are lots of films making a ton of money that would qualify as "crappy". But lets keep it to Bond movies. DAD made over 400 million dollars worldwide. You gonna tell me and the rest of us on this board that DAD is a good movie? Lets throw MR in that argument for good measure.

    I stand by my comments about DAF. It is not only crappy movie it is a ton of horse manure and reeks of roadkill.
    Correction. You are the one that brought up "crappy" and labelled the movie as such, not me. Also, about my comment having more holes in it than the plot of DAF... er... how so?... I see no evidence from you to suggest otherwise.

    With regards to box office, I'm simply taking the same argument that has been used over and over again for Skyfall as a means of defense and applied it to DAF. I made that quite clear in my previous posts. Does that make me wrong or does that show up the same fundamental weakness in the SF debate when used there? If you have a problem with that I suggest you take it up with those on other threads that like to use BO as a yardstick. But somehow I don't think you will because you'd rather bash a movie that has the momentum of hostility behind it which makes it easy game.

    I agree that it's not a perfect film, but it's certainly not the pile of fecal matter that you make it out to be. There's still a lot of enjoyment to be had from watching it and on the plus side it has a cracking score by John Barry.

    Have a good day.
  • doubleonothingdoubleonothing Los Angeles Moderator
    edited November 2012 Posts: 864
    Opinions will always be divided over the quality of Bond films.
    I personally don't like DAF very much (although there are some fine moments) but I know others that rate it very highly. I think this is a matter of opinion and an argument that cannot be won...

    Especially in a thread that isn't about how good DAF is or comparing its BO with other films.

    I don't think this thread has much in terms of legs, but in deference to the original poster, I'm going to say let's get back on topic and talk about the merits of Wint and Kidd vs. Mr. Kil.

    If there's not much to be added, then I'll get the keys out.
  • Opinions will always be divided over the quality of Bond films.

    Depends what one is looking for, as much as anything else. If one is looking for pure escapism that doesn't require a lot of thought, Diamonds Are Forever probably is a good fit.

  • I've had enough for this night but how did I miss this ?

    Mr Kil was an obscure character, so vague, only on screen for limited time, an overall disappointment. "I'm Mr Kil"... etc

    Instantly forgettable

    Wint and Kidd however, are two of the greatest characters ever in James Bond, fun, humorous, lively, bizarre, unpredictable. They almost make Diamonds worth watching, (along with Jill St John)

    The ending on the ocean liner is Bond gold, they had so many great moments whenever they were on screen, such as the killing of Tynan in the Nevada desert, killing Mrs Whistler in an Amsterdam canal, to trying to bury Bond alive in a construction set outside Vegas. They were immense

    I give Kil 0, no let's make it generous, 1 per cent of the voting, and Glover and Smith get 99 per cent of the vote

    They can't be beaten. Goodnight
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    I've had enough for this night but how did I miss this ?

    Mr Kil was an obscure character, so vague, only on screen for limited time, an overall disappointment. "I'm Mr Kil"... etc

    Instantly forgettable

    Wint and Kidd however, are two of the greatest characters ever in James Bond, fun, humorous, lively, bizarre, unpredictable. They almost make Diamonds worth watching, (along with Jill St John)

    The ending on the ocean liner is Bond gold, they had so many great moments whenever they were on screen, such as the killing of Tynan in the Nevada desert, killing Mrs Whistler in an Amsterdam canal, to trying to bury Bond alive in a construction set outside Vegas. They were immense

    I give Kil 0, no let's make it generous, 1 per cent of the voting, and Glover and Smith get 99 per cent of the vote

    They can't be beaten. Goodnight

    1% for Kil?? I demand an investigation into this outrageous Mugabe style vote rigging as the exit polls had it at 0.0001%. Something is amiss there.
  • QBranchQBranch Always have an escape plan. Mine is watching James Bond films.
    edited November 2012 Posts: 13,913
    OHMSS69 wrote:
    Mr. Kil, now that's a name to die for. He was a bullshit character and totally wasted.
    Unfortunately, Brozza's era was littered with underused henchmen. Kil; Gabor; perhaps Zao and Bullion. Renard was also underused. I'm sure there's others. IMO, Xenia, Dr. Kaufmann and Stamper are the henchpeople who got used to their full potential. Boris was written well, but I don't know if he's classed as a henchman.

    Regarding Wint and Kidd, I agree they were great and memorable henchmen. First time I saw them drop the scorpion down that guy's back, I was like "Woah, that's ruthless!" Then they walked off holding hands, and I was like "Okay- that's... different!" I like the fact that they're also a hench-duo. When else do we see that? Perhaps Xenia and Ourimov were a duo. Wint and Kidd are unique henchmen indeed, and they get plenty of hench-dialogue- two things missing in the Craig era.
  • Mr. White & Mr. Kidd for me. I thought Mr. Kill was a alright character.
Sign In or Register to comment.